Smith v. Pro Football, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
593 F.2d 1173 · 1978
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984), United States Football League Usfl Imi Laefc v. National Football League Nfl R (1988)
59 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1013 (§ 3 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1291 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 3 (§ 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'a concerted attempt by a group of competitors at one level to protect itself from competition from non-group members who seek to compete at that level.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he legality of an agreement or regulation cannot be determined by so simple a test, as whether it restrains competition. Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint was imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“interested in driving another team out of business.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.